14 Jan
2008
14 Jan
'08
1:32 p.m.
Fons Adriaensen:
I wrote libzita-resample mainly for high-quiality
real-time SRC
of multichannel audio, and it's a compromise between 'numerical'
quality and CPU load. But so far nobody has been able to hear the
difference with a no-compromise algorithm in a series of listening
tests (all audio experts and musicians).
Interesting. Do you know if anyone is able to hear the difference
between a 48000hz sound downsampled to 44100hz and then upsample
to 48000hz again, and the original 48000hz sound?
Just wondering. :-)
14 Jan
14 Jan
2:05 p.m.
New subject: Need to convert 24bit/48000 to 16bit/44100 stereo on linux
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 06:32:14PM +0100, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
Fons Adriaensen:
There was a very interesting report about this in the JAES some
months ago. I don't have it here, but will post the reference
later (I should have it at home).
The authors have conducted quite an extensive series of listening
tests to find out if anyone could hear the difference between the
'High Resolution' audio formats and the plain old CD. They did it
by recoding DVD-A and SACD recordings to CD standards, and let the
listeners compare with the original. Equipment and test procedures
were up to the highest standards.
The conclusion was IIRC rather clear: you can't hear the difference.
Next question then was why all these HR recordings sounded so
much better than the average CD recording of the same music -
most listeners and the also the authors of the report did agree
on that.
The answer suggested by the authors is quite sobering: because
these recordings have been made for a niche market of audiophiles,
and the sound engineers who made them were therefore not subject
to the usual pressure to produce a type of sound that record
companies think sells best (reduced dynamic range, a balance
that emphasizes solo parts, added reverb, EQ, etc.). In other
words because they were allowed to do the recording in the way
they believed was right, usually employing very simple recording
techniques.
If this is true, it means we are being deprived of good recorded
sound not because the technology isn't performing, but just
because bad sound sells better.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.
I wrote libzita-resample mainly for high-quiality
real-time SRC
of multichannel audio, and it's a compromise between 'numerical'
quality and CPU load. But so far nobody has been able to hear the
difference with a no-compromise algorithm in a series of listening
tests (all audio experts and musicians).
Interesting. Do you know if anyone is able to hear the difference
between a 48000hz sound downsampled to 44100hz and then upsample
to 48000hz again, and the original 48000hz sound?
Just wondering. :-) 
3:05 p.m.
New subject: [LAU] Need to convert 24bit/48000 to 16bit/44100 stereo on linux
Am Montag, 14. Januar 2008 schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
Next question then was why all these HR recordings
sounded so
much better than the average CD recording of the same music -
most listeners and the also the authors of the report did agree
on that.
The answer suggested by the authors is quite sobering: because
these recordings have been made for a niche market of audiophiles,
and the sound engineers who made them were therefore not subject
to the usual pressure to produce a type of sound that record
companies think sells best (reduced dynamic range, a balance
that emphasizes solo parts, added reverb, EQ, etc.). In other
words because they were allowed to do the recording in the way
they believed was right, usually employing very simple recording
techniques.
If this is true, it means we are being deprived of good recorded
sound not because the technology isn't performing, but just
because bad sound sells better.
You get the same answer out of any serious discussion about compression and
mastering: Bad loud music sells better than for example an unplugged concert
recorded with just a stereo-mic (or some ambisonic-setup:)...
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
4:44 p.m.
New subject: Need to convert 24bit/48000 to 16bit/44100 stereo on linux
Arnold Krille wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Januar 2008 schrieb Fons Adriaensen:
Compressed music avoids the radio station nightmare of quiet passages -
listeners might think something's wrong with the station and switch to
another station. Any "selling better" effect is only because radio
stations simply refuse to play uncompressed music.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
If this is true, it means we are being deprived
of good recorded
sound not because the technology isn't performing, but just
because bad sound sells better.
You get the same answer out of any serious discussion about compression and
mastering: Bad loud music sells better than for example an unplugged concert
recorded with just a stereo-mic (or some ambisonic-setup:)... 
5:49 p.m.
New subject: Need to convert 24bit/48000 to 16bit/44100 stereo on linux
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:44:34 -1000
david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Compressed music avoids the radio station nightmare of
quiet passages -
listeners might think something's wrong with the station and switch to
another station. Any "selling better" effect is only because radio
stations simply refuse to play uncompressed music.
That was not the argument I have always heard in favour of "loud mastering".
After all, if the radio stations wanted to they could always compress the material as it
is broadcast. Perhaps Classic-FM (UK classical station) already do this as classical CDs
tend to have much more dynamic range and are thus hard to listen to in the car because the
quiet passages get lost in noise whereas Classic FMs radio output seems to be less prone
to the problem. I have often thought that the car CD player should offer a compressor but
I'd want it under my control and still have the option of hearing the same CD at home
with the full dynamic range.
Back to the reasons for "loud mastering" - I had heard it was to get people to
notice the song, i.e. if it was louder sounding than the rest people would suddenly notice
it. Of course once one producer does it the others have to follow and a kind of war
ensues.
Steve.
15 Jan
15 Jan
10:35 a.m.
New subject: Need to convert 24bit/48000 to 16bit/44100 stereo on?linux
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 08:04:12PM +0100, Arnold Krille wrote:
You get the same answer out of any serious discussion
about compression and
mastering: Bad loud music sells better than for example an unplugged concert
recorded with just a stereo-mic (or some ambisonic-setup:)...
For the record: Ambisonic doesn't have to mean 'purist' in the
sense that everything is captured with just one mic. You can
mix, compress, use effects, and generally destroy the sound
as well as you can for stereo...
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.
7:28 a.m.
New subject: Need to convert 24bit/48000 to 16bit/44100 stereo on linux
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 07:00:17PM +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
There was a very interesting report about this in the
JAES some
months ago. I don't have it here, but will post the reference
later (I should have it at home).
Here it is:
E.B. Meyer and D.R. Moran
Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted
into High-Resolution Audio Playback
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society,
Volume 55, number 9, pp 775-779,
September 2007
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.
6160
days inactive
6161
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
6 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Arnold Krille -
david -
Fons Adriaensen -
Kjetil S. Matheussen -
Steve Fosdick