18 Nov
2010
18 Nov
'10
11:04 a.m.
2010/11/18 Florian Faber <faber(a)faberman.de>
Thomas,
use your
ears. There is a reason to use 44.1k and not 8k on CD for ex. And
there is a reason for listening to LPs instead of CDs
Im not very into this stuff, but you can
certainly hear the difference.
This is, with all due respect, bullshit. On the technical side, there is
no difference, just a waste of bandwidth.
Of course a higher SR gives better sound. Wich you can easily hear if you If you eq in 44.1k you get that early nineties techno
high end.
If you hear differences, your filters and/or converters are broken.
Maybe the plugins I use are crappy. But nevertheless if you raise a level in
a digital eq it makes good sense that it distorts because you move the
points away from each other and thus making the wave more of a square?
Flo
--
Machines can do the work, so people have time to think.
public key DA43FEF4 x-hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
18 Nov
18 Nov
11:08 a.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On 11/18/10 12:04, Thomas Hedegaard wrote:
You can go on repeating your statement, but it doesn't make it any more
true. How about providing some evidence for your position, it will
shorten this thread rapidly.
Flo
--
Machines can do the work, so people have time to think.
public key DA43FEF4 x-hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
2010/11/18 Florian Faber <faber(a)faberman.de>
This is, with
all due respect, bullshit. On the technical side, there is
no difference, just a waste of bandwidth.
Of course a higher SR gives better
sound. 
11:35 a.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
SR of 44.100 records frequencys until 22.050Hz. You don't need more than that. you get
aliasing if you have a signal over 22.050 but a good card will work with oversampling and
filters to avoid that.
Fabio
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 09:08:03, Florian Faber escreveu:
On 11/18/10 12:04, Thomas Hedegaard wrote:
You can go on repeating your statement, but it doesn't make it any more
true. How about providing some evidence for your position, it will
shorten this thread rapidly.
Flo
2010/11/18 Florian Faber
<faber(a)faberman.de>
This is,
with all due respect, bullshit. On the technical side, there is
no difference, just a waste of bandwidth.
Of course a higher SR gives better
sound. 
11:29 a.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Thomas Hedegaard <thomas(a)vector.dk> wrote:
2010/11/18 Florian Faber <faber(a)faberman.de>
certainly, going from 8k to 44.1k makes a huge difference. this is
because the general threshold of human hearing is around 20kHz, and so
an 8k SR results in loss of audible frequencies. at 40kHz and above,
nyquist's theorem says that the sampled signal isn't missing any
frequencies, and so going from 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz or above doesn't
help in any way.
however, most A/D equipment does include a brickwall filter to help
avoid "aliasing" during the conversion, and its easier to make this
filter behave "better" if its being run at higher frequency. the
difference, though, is fairly small, and gets smaller the higher you
go.
there has never been, to my knowledge, any double blind test that has
revealed that any more than a tiny number of individuals (if even
that) can hear the difference between the 4X kHz SR range (44.1, 48
etc) and the 8X+ kHz SR range (88.2 and above).
as for your comment about LPs vs CDs, perhaps you should take a look
at the bass rolloff inherent in the RIAA EQ curve for vinyl. there is
definitely a "sound" to LPs, and its been clear for a long time now
that its not the sound of "perfect reproduction". it just happens to
be a sound that many people (especially those who grew up with it)
find themselves liking.
Thomas,
Of course a higher SR gives better sound. Wich you can easily hear if you
use your ears. There is a reason to use 44.1k and not 8k on CD for ex. Im not very into this stuff, but you can
certainly hear the difference.
This is, with all due respect, bullshit. On the technical side, there is
no difference, just a waste of bandwidth.
8:37 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:29:02AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
there has never been, to my knowledge, any double
blind test that has
revealed that any more than a tiny number of individuals (if even
that) can hear the difference between the 4X kHz SR range (44.1, 48
etc) and the 8X+ kHz SR range (88.2 and above).
Two years or so ago there was an in interesting 'engineering report'
published in the AES journal. It reported on the results of a long
series of listening tests involving hundreds of listeners, all of
then selected for their interest in high quality audio.
For these tests the authors used 'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
(mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
The latter result is quite surprising, but given the first one it
says nothing at all about the merits of higher sample rates. It is
just the result of the 'audiophile' recordings (targeted at a very
critical niche audience) being produced with more attention to audio
and musical quality than the average CD.
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
8:46 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:37:30 +0100
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:29:02AM -0500, Paul Davis
wrote:
I don't understand how the second question could even posed in relation
to the first.
If there is no difference, there can be no preference, unless, of
course, they had other factors to consider besides music.
David
there has never been, to my knowledge, any double
blind test that
has revealed that any more than a tiny number of individuals (if
even that) can hear the difference between the 4X kHz SR range
(44.1, 48 etc) and the 8X+ kHz SR range (88.2 and above).
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD. 
8:58 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:43:02 -0500
David Santamauro <david.santamauro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I had to read Fons' original message a couple of times before I got
what his points were.
The first was that no one could tell the difference between the original
audiophile recording and the transcoded version of the audiophile recording.
The second was that there was a big preference for the audiophile recording
compared to the standard commercially released CD of the same music.
The second point indicates that listeners can tell when extra care is taken
to make the finished product, but that it really doesn't matter what the
sample rate and sample bit size is for that product.
--
======================================================================
Joe Hartley - UNIX/network Consultant - jh(a)brainiac.com
Without deviation from the norm, "progress" is not possible. - FZappa
1. Nobody
could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
I don't understand how the second question could even posed in relation
to the first.
If there is no difference, there can be no preference, unless, of
course, they had other factors to consider besides music. 
19 Nov
19 Nov
5:52 a.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Joe Hartley wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:43:02 -0500
David Santamauro <david.santamauro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I had to read Fons' original message a couple of times before I got
what his points were.
The first was that no one could tell the difference between the original
audiophile recording and the transcoded version of the audiophile recording.
The second was that there was a big preference for the audiophile recording
compared to the standard commercially released CD of the same music.
The second point indicates that listeners can tell when extra care is taken
to make the finished product, but that it really doesn't matter what the
sample rate and sample bit size is for that product.
I work with 48-bit color TIF images, with color dynamic ranges way
beyond any printer or monitor's ability to differentiate them. Sort of
the equivalent (to me) of 96 or 192KHz sample rates.
The benefit of all those extra bits of color information in an image?
Filters and other computer processing routines run on the image have
more information available to them when processing a given pixel.
Software processing routines don't have the same visual or audio
processing limitations/requirements as people or printers or monitors,
so I don't see anything wrong with recording at bit rates much higher
than the end product will have.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
1. Nobody
could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
I don't understand how the
second question could even posed in relation
to the first.
If there is no difference, there can be no preference, unless, of
course, they had other factors to consider besides music.
6:40 a.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On 11/19/10 06:52, david wrote:
[..]
The benefit of all those extra bits of color information in an image?
Filters and other computer processing routines run on the image have
more information available to them when processing a given pixel.
Software processing routines don't have the same visual or audio
processing limitations/requirements as people or printers or monitors,
so I don't see anything wrong with recording at bit rates much higher
than the end product will have.
You are free to do whatever you want. Just don't argue that there was a
difference in the that was a result of the higher SR (and not due to
broken converters etc.).
Fons' test was about a carefully mastered result, keep that in mind. Of
course you want to record with at least 24bit and process the data with
floats.
Flo
--
Machines can do the work, so people have time to think.
public key DA43FEF4 x-hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net
8:43 a.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:52:06PM -1000, david wrote:
I work with 48-bit color TIF images, with color
dynamic ranges way
beyond any printer or monitor's ability to differentiate them. Sort
of the equivalent (to me) of 96 or 192KHz sample rates.
The equivalent of more bits per sample really. For images that
certainly makes sense - nobody ever claimed that 8 bits per
component were sufficient, plus there is the disadvantage of
non-linear reproduction (gamma).
The equivalent of higher sample rates for images is higher
resolution, and again this makes sense. When working on images,
operations that amount to resampling are much more frequent than
they are in typical audio processing (any change of size means
resampling).
In audio there is nothing *wrong* with working at higher sample
rates, but generally nothing is gained by doing it. Except that
some algorithms may become easier to implement. For example
zita-at1 (auto-tuner) will do parts of its internal processing
using the double sample rate when working in 44.1 or 48 kHz.
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
18 Nov
18 Nov
9:28 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 18:37:30, fons(a)kokkinizita.net escreveu:
For these tests the authors used 'audiophile'
DVD-A recordings
(mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
well, you sure loose quality downsampling to 16bit, that's what they heard
they should have made the test only with diferent samplerates.
10:05 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:28:04PM -0200, Fabio wrote:
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 18:37:30,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net escreveu:
On the contrary, the test showed that the listeners could *not* hear
the difference.
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
For these tests the authors used
'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
(mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
well, you sure loose quality downsampling to 16bit, that's what they heard
10:10 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 20:05:27, você escreveu:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:28:04PM -0200, Fabio
wrote:
well I refered to Number 2 as 1 + 2 say diferent things
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 18:37:30,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net escreveu:
On the contrary, the test showed that the listeners could *not* hear
the difference.
Ciao,
For these tests the authors used
'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
(mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
well, you sure loose quality downsampling to 16bit, that's what they heard 
10:31 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thursday 18 November 2010 23:10:03 Fabio wrote:
On the contrary, the test showed that the listeners could *not* hear
the difference.
Ciao,
well I refered to Number 2 as 1 + 2 say diferent things
Number two said that different styles of recording (mic-placement, room-
acoustics and mixing) made a difference, while number one says that there is no
difference between 192kHz (and probably 24bit or 32bit) and 44.1kHz/16bit.
Given the fact that nowadays most consumer soundcards work with 48kHz
internally and re-sample anything else, its save to stay with 48kHz for
recording and online-publishing.
Have fun,
Arnold
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 20:05:27, você
escreveu:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:28:04PM -0200, Fabio wrote:
> > Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 18:37:30, fons(a)kokkinizita.net
escreveu:
For these
tests the authors used 'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
(mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
well, you sure loose quality downsampling to 16bit, that's what they
heard
11:44 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 20:31:31, Arnold Krille escreveu:
On Thursday 18 November 2010 23:10:03 Fabio wrote:
well I refered to Number 2 as 1 + 2 say diferent things
Number two said that different styles of recording (mic-placement, room-
acoustics and mixing) made a difference, while number one says that there is no
difference between 192kHz (and probably 24bit or 32bit) and 44.1kHz/16bit.
Given the fact that nowadays most consumer soundcards work with 48kHz
internally and re-sample anything else, its save to stay with 48kHz for
recording and online-publishing.
Have fun,
Arnold
yea, your right, didn't read it carefully enough.
anyone knows how to find out internally SR of my card?
Fabio
Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 20:05:27,
você escreveu:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:28:04PM -0200, Fabio wrote:
> > Em quinta-feira 18 novembro 2010, às 18:37:30, fons(a)kokkinizita.net
escreveu:
> For these tests the authors used
'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
> (mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
> or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
> transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
> emerged from this:
>
> 1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
> reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
> versions.
>
> 2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
> other versions of the same music released on CD.
well, you sure loose quality downsampling to 16bit, that's what they
heard
On the contrary, the test showed that the listeners could *not* hear
the difference.
Ciao, 
9:39 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 21:37 +0100, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Two years or so ago there was an in interesting
'engineering report'
published in the AES journal. It reported on the results of a long
series of listening tests involving hundreds of listeners, all of
then selected for their interest in high quality audio.
For these tests the authors used 'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
(mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
The latter result is quite surprising, but given the first one it
says nothing at all about the merits of higher sample rates. It is
just the result of the 'audiophile' recordings (targeted at a very
critical niche audience) being produced with more attention to audio
and musical quality than the average CD.
Points 1 and 2 seem to be in conflict. I can't draw any conclusions
from those two statements without more information.
At what point did the listeners say they preferred the "audiophile"
recordings?
I don't have any links to the study that I read about, but in a study
conducted a few years ago, among hundreds of people that included audio
engineers, audiphile home listeners, people with no audio background,
etc... the data showed that when asked, the group correctly guessed
which source was 24/192 (as opposed to 16/44.1) something like 50.1% of
the time, with the audio professionals only being slightly higher.
Anyway, I would like to understand the two points you mentioned better.
They don't seem to make sense to me.
Ricardus...
10:23 p.m.
New subject: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:39:39PM -0500, Ricardus Vincente wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 21:37 +0100,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
50% - a random guess - is the expected result if you can't hear any
difference.
Two years or so ago there was an in interesting
'engineering report'
published in the AES journal. It reported on the results of a long
series of listening tests involving hundreds of listeners, all of
then selected for their interest in high quality audio.
For these tests the authors used 'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
(mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
The latter result is quite surprising, but given the first one it
says nothing at all about the merits of higher sample rates. It is
just the result of the 'audiophile' recordings (targeted at a very
critical niche audience) being produced with more attention to audio
and musical quality than the average CD.
Points 1 and 2 seem to be in conflict. I can't draw any conclusions
from those two statements without more information.
At what point did the listeners say they preferred the "audiophile"
recordings?
I don't have any links to the study that I read about, but in a study
conducted a few years ago, among hundreds of people that included audio
engineers, audiphile home listeners, people with no audio background,
etc... the data showed that when asked, the group correctly guessed
which source was 24/192 (as opposed to 16/44.1) something like 50.1% of
the time, with the audio professionals only being slightly higher. Anyway, I would like to understand the two points you
mentioned better.
They don't seem to make sense to me.
There really is not conflict at all. What the test showed was that
the preference for the audiophile recordings was not the result of
better sound quality due to higher sample rate or sample size, but
of the audiophile recordings being produced with more attention to
musical and acoustic authenticity and less commercial compromises
than the average CD.
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
19 Nov
19 Nov
10:17 a.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Fons,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:29:02AM -0500, Paul Davis
wrote:
Thanks for this one. I had been looking for this type of more scientific
information with tests about something I've personally been going a long
for ages against the statement that "CD is technically crap", that is:
do some bloody blind tests!
Do you have the reference for this paper? I can't seem to find that
exact report through google.
there has never been, to my knowledge, any double
blind test that has
revealed that any more than a tiny number of individuals (if even
that) can hear the difference between the 4X kHz SR range (44.1, 48
etc) and the 8X+ kHz SR range (88.2 and above).
Two years or so ago there was an
in interesting 'engineering report'
published in the AES journal. It reported on the results of a long
series of listening tests involving hundreds of listeners, all of
then selected for their interest in high quality audio.
For these tests the authors used 'audiophile' DVD-A recordings
(mostly classical music and jazz IIRC), all of them 24-bit, 96
or or 192 kHz, and had the listeners compare them to a version
transcoded to CD standards (44.1 kHz, 16 bit). Two results
emerged from this:
1. Nobody could hear any difference between the original recordings,
reproduced using the best equipment available, and the transcoded
versions.
2. Almost all listeners preferred the 'audiophile' recordings to
other versions of the same music released on CD.
The latter result is quite surprising, but given the
first one it
says nothing at all about the merits of higher sample rates. It is
just the result of the 'audiophile' recordings (targeted at a very
critical niche audience) being produced with more attention to audio
and musical quality than the average CD.
Point 2 makes me think of the fact that someone discovered [citation
needed] that many so called CD "remasterings" of '70s and '80s records
have actually been compressed (as in using an audio compressior), in
turn creating a belief in 'nostalgia audiophiles' that "the vinyl
sounded better than CD", were probably what is sounding better (despite
noise and annoying clicks and crackle) is a better S/N ratio which was
'killed' (or at least strongly reduced) by the compressed ("remastered")
version (and of course it wouldn't surprise me that "remastering" may
also have involved some eq etc, but one should do a more scientific
analysis).
Something else (not related directly to the topic and, again, I would be
happy to learn if tests exists). One could argue that "some" noise could
actually make a recording subjectively more pleasing/interesting due to
the fact that we are immersed in a background noise in everyday life and
that hearing some of that noise makes us feel more "reassured"... But I
can see how I'm probably drifting a little too far here :)
Lorenzo.
2:28 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
Thanks for this one. I had been looking for this type
of more
scientific information with tests about something I've personally
been going a long for ages against the statement that "CD is
technically crap", that is: do some bloody blind tests!
Do you have the reference for this paper? I can't seem to find that
exact report through google.
Unfortunately no. I remember reading it in the actual AES Journal,
but I neither have a paper nor electronic copy of it. You can
probably find it the AES electronic library, but you'd have to
pay even for the PDF. Must have been between two and three years
ago, IIRC.
Point 2 makes me think of the fact that someone
discovered [citation
needed] that many so called CD "remasterings" of '70s and '80s
records have actually been compressed (as in using an audio
compressior), in turn creating a belief in 'nostalgia audiophiles'
that "the vinyl sounded better than CD", were probably what is
sounding better (despite noise and annoying clicks and crackle) is a
better S/N ratio which was 'killed' (or at least strongly reduced)
by the compressed ("remastered") version (and of course it wouldn't
surprise me that "remastering" may also have involved some eq etc,
but one should do a more scientific analysis).
I suspect that very few of the re-releases on CD of vinyl recordings
are actually close to the original.
Something else (not related directly to the topic and,
again, I
would be happy to learn if tests exists). One could argue that
"some" noise could actually make a recording subjectively more
pleasing/interesting due to the fact that we are immersed in a
background noise in everyday life and that hearing some of that
noise makes us feel more "reassured"... But I can see how I'm
probably drifting a little too far here :)
I wouldn't be surprised. OTOH, I really love the wide dynamic
range we can have today.
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
3:01 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Em sexta-feira 19 novembro 2010, às 12:27:57, fons(a)kokkinizita.net escreveu:
I suspect that very few of the re-releases on CD of vinyl recordings
are actually close to the original.
FACT, they compress the hell out of it.
3:31 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:01:26PM -0200, Fabio wrote:
Em sexta-feira 19 novembro 2010, às 12:27:57,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net escreveu:
If true, that certainly gives a lie to all the promotional
materials about how they gave scrupulous care to maintain
fidelity to the original recordings.
--
Joel Roth
I suspect that very few of the re-releases on CD of vinyl recordings
are actually close to the original.
FACT, they compress the hell out of it. 
3:38 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Excerpts from Joel Roth's message of 2010-11-19 16:31:16 +0100:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:01:26PM -0200, Fabio
wrote:
promotion == advertisement == lies
no surprise there
Em sexta-feira 19 novembro 2010, às 12:27:57,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net escreveu:
If true, that certainly gives a lie to all the promotional
materials about how they gave scrupulous care to maintain
fidelity to the original recordings.
I suspect that very few of the re-releases on CD of vinyl recordings
are actually close to the original.
FACT, they compress the hell out of it.
3:46 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Em sexta-feira 19 novembro 2010, às 13:31:16, Joel Roth escreveu:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:01:26PM -0200, Fabio
wrote:
and how do they define "fidelity to the original recordings"?
they are all remastered (as they surley don't convert the traks from the master disc),
by "fidelity" they mean that they use the original mix. and we know how
mastering today works: the more compressing the "better"
Em sexta-feira 19 novembro 2010, às 12:27:57,
fons(a)kokkinizita.net escreveu:
If true, that certainly gives a lie to all the promotional
materials about how they gave scrupulous care to maintain
fidelity to the original recordings.
I suspect that very few of the re-releases on CD of vinyl recordings
are actually close to the original.
FACT, they compress the hell out of it.
6:19 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
Do you have the reference for this paper? I can't
seem to find that
exact report through google.
This the reference in the AES library:
<http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195>
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
6:45 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
There is a pdf copy available online, found thru google:
http://c.wrzuta.pl/wo8536/848633c40022f8f4499160b0/0/jaes_v55_9_pg775.pdf
Best
A C Censi
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:19 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Lorenzo
Sutton wrote:
--
A. C. Censi
accensi [em] gmail [ponto] com
accensi [em] montreal [ponto] com [ponto] br
Do you have the reference for this paper? I
can't seem to find that
exact report through google.
This the reference in the AES library:
<http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195>
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8:34 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:45:14PM -0200, A. C. Censi wrote:
There is a pdf copy available online, found thru
google:
http://c.wrzuta.pl/wo8536/848633c40022f8f4499160b0/0/jaes_v55_9_pg775.pdf
Hehe, the AES won't like it, but you saved some of us $20 !
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
20 Nov
20 Nov
12:20 a.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Do not tell anyone!
Ciò che gli occhi non vedono...il cuore non sente...
oppure
Occhio non vede, borsa non duole!
ACC
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:34 PM, <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:45:14PM -0200, A. C. Censi
wrote:
--
A. C. Censi
accensi [em] gmail [ponto] com
accensi [em] montreal [ponto] com [ponto] br
There is a pdf copy available online, found thru
google:
http://c.wrzuta.pl/wo8536/848633c40022f8f4499160b0/0/jaes_v55_9_pg775.pdf
Hehe, the AES won't like it, but you saved some of us $20 !
Ciao,
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
22 Nov
22 Nov
9:50 a.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
A. C. Censi wrote:
There is a pdf copy available online, found thru
google:
http://c.wrzuta.pl/wo8536/848633c40022f8f4499160b0/0/jaes_v55_9_pg775.pdf
Best
A C Censi
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:19 PM,<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
>
>> Do you have the reference for this paper? I can't seem to find that
>> exact report through google.
> This the reference in the AES library:
>
> <http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195>
>
> Ciao,
>
Great! Thanks to both for the pointers.
Lorenzo
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
8 Dec
8 Dec
6:45 p.m.
New subject: Sampling rate and perceived audio quality [WAS]: Re: edirol fa101 on differant rate that 48k ?
Thanks for that paper. I also like to know about papers like this for
some kind of audio discussions.
2010/11/22, Lorenzo Sutton <lsutton(a)libero.it>it>:
A. C. Censi wrote:
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
There is a pdf copy available online, found thru
google:
http://c.wrzuta.pl/wo8536/848633c40022f8f4499160b0/0/jaes_v55_9_pg775.pdf
Best
A C Censi
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:19 PM,<fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:19:19AM +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:
>
>> Do you have the reference for this paper? I can't seem to find that
>> exact report through google.
> This the reference in the AES library:
>
> <http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195>
>
> Ciao,
>
Great! Thanks to both for the pointers.
Lorenzo
--
FA
There are three of them, and Alleline.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4893
days inactive
4913
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
28 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
A. C. Censi -
Arnold Krille -
Carlos sanchiavedraz -
david -
David Santamauro -
Fabio -
Florian Faber -
fons＠kokkinizita.net -
Joe Hartley -
Joel Roth -
Lorenzo Sutton -
Paul Davis -
Philipp Überbacher -
Ricardus Vincente -
Thomas Hedegaard