Can't get anything other than 48khz

I wont even bother with a real reply since it's obivous\ you know just enough about certain tech (throwing around tech jargon which you dont understand) to make an ass out of yourself.
Between your sound related threads and your initial topic about graphics here I'm not sure if you're even being serious.
Your last sentence is mind blowing btw.
 
_xxx_ said:
He said you can't hear anything above 22 KHz, but that is simply totally wrong. While you can't hear the individual frequencies, you can very well hear the difference in the complete signal.
Click to expand...

If you take a signal with higher frequencies than 22KHz, then sample that at 44KHz, and listen to the resulting sound, then yes, you can hear the difference. That's because you're getting aliasing from undersampling the signal, not because 44KHz is insufficient. If you instead sample at say 96KHz, then filter out all frequencies above 22KHz and downsample to 44KHz, then you won't hear a difference.
 
Check it ...

http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1

If I take a SACD or DVD-A disc and pass it through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz A/D/A processor, will I notice a difference? Seems the answer may be no, proving the production of the music is more important than HD audio formats. Seems the CD is near the limit of what the vast vast majority of people can hear. I'm sure some people are more in tune, because not everyone can direct an orchestra conductor, but it's time for electronics companies to stop pushing technology for specialists onto the consumer.
 
yeah I believe most people have a hard time hearing above about 13 KHz or so. 44.1 KHz sampling rate gives you more than enough range (up to 22.05 KHz). 22 KHz is the peak of those with the best hearing.

There are other problems with compression though, if you look at old MP3 codecs and low bitrates. But really, 256kbps VBR MP3 would be transparent to almost anyone out there unless you built a setup designed to magnify any weaknesses the codec has. I've messed with the new AAC HE codec and found acceptable sound all the way down to 80 kbps! Things are getting better and better.
 
^- "audiophiles" denounce double-blind tests because the very nature of not knowing what source your listening to is apparently making it impossible to know which one sounds better, you need to hear, and see, and think about, the price tag or else it's useless. It's some kind of macro quantum stupidity or something.

_xxx_ said:
words
Click to expand...

What all the other people said already, and here I thought my completely casual namedrop of Harry Nyquist would prevent that kind of crap :(

IQ: lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
radeonic2 said:
I wont even bother with a real reply since it's obivous\ you know just enough about certain tech (throwing around tech jargon which you dont understand) to make an ass out of yourself.
Between your sound related threads and your initial topic about graphics here I'm not sure if you're even being serious.
Your last sentence is mind blowing btw.
Click to expand...
Um, then why do SACD's use such a high sampling rate and sound better overall than anything?

Bitrate is resolution x sampling rate x number of channels.

Lossless compression is fine.

However, ANY AND ALL lossy compression formats suck for people who aren't practically deaf.
 
2008 IQ is unacceptable said:
I'm not considering bandwidth, the quality of ddl and dts sucks, IMO. Any lossy compression sucks, IMO. And guess what, 24/96 stereo lossless doesn't take up any more space/bandwidth than lossy shitty ddl 5.1 and it sounds a lot better, and doesn't require purchasing 5 $100+ speakers.

I really don't know why they just can't at least use wma lossless sd. That's the least they could do. considering they can do wma lossless hd (i.e. 24/96 rather than 16/44 or 48) in stereo and lpcm in 5.1 channels.

Using 256 kbps lossy audio in pc games is stupid, because it winds up making the PS3 a superior tech experience in that area. The whole point of PCs is better quality allowed by more power.

Finally, it's ridiculous to associate sampling rate with frequency response. 48 KHz sampling rates wouldn't exist, nonetheless 192 KHz, if quality was limited by frequency response.
Click to expand...

24/96 Stereo PCM consumes 4608 kilobits per second. Dolby Digtial 5.1 usually consumes around 448 to 640 kilobits per second.
 
from wiki article on sacd
"Few home audio systems can accurately reproduce sounds above 20 kHz, and most recording chains are designed around this limit. Modern popular music is often compressed to a small percentage of the maximum available dynamic range, and thus would not significantly benefit from the extended dynamic range available in SACD."

in other words if the orignal recording is not recorded at a high sampling rate theres no point playing it back at a high sampling rate, a lot of game audio is 22khz fer christ sakes ;)
 
2008 IQ is unacceptable said:
Um, then why do SACD's use such a high sampling rate and sound better overall than anything?

Bitrate is resolution x sampling rate x number of channels.

Lossless compression is fine.

However, ANY AND ALL lossy compression formats suck for people who aren't practically deaf.
Click to expand...
Because people assume having a higher sampling rate and bitdepth automatically means higher quality sound. Not to say that SACD sounds any worse than a cd, but just because it's SACD doesnt mean it's automatically better.
Please dont assume to tell me about bitrate, as you are hardly qualified as such.
 
2008 IQ is unacceptable said:
However, ANY AND ALL lossy compression formats suck for people who aren't practically deaf.
Click to expand...

What a rubbish statement. I can guarantee under double blind testing you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 256kbps VBR MP3 and a lossless file of the same track. After a few years of reading audiophile forums and attending meets I'm just tired of these kinds of statements. I've had the pleasure of hearing $20,000 headphone systems and many times more than that loud-speaker systems and could tell exactly zero difference but in the absolute extreme cases (a headphone that was painfully detailed in the highs and I would never use in regular listening). I've seen similar statements to yours by other people and once under the knife they couldn't even begin to put up real differences.
 
radeonic2 said:
Because people assume having a higher sampling rate and bitdepth automatically means higher quality sound. Not to say that SACD sounds any worse than a cd, but just because it's SACD doesnt mean it's automatically better.
Please dont assume to tell me about bitrate, as you are hardly qualified as such.
Click to expand...
That's according to you.

Plus you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that "having a higher sampling rate and bit depth automatically means higher quality sound."
 
2008 IQ is unacceptable said:
That's according to you.

Plus you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that "having a higher sampling rate and bit depth automatically means higher quality sound."
Click to expand...
Well others here are being nicer to you, I am not holding back since I feel you add nothing to this forum, as you go on some uneducated rant on some subject while people here correct you, then you say ok and whatever and rant about something else which are you not educated on.
How am I putting words in your mouth?? I am simply stating that you basically dont know what you're talking about...
 
96kHz I can live happily without, but it sure would be nice to have bit accurate playback. If a chip supports HD Audio, why this "everything resampled to 48kHz, take it or leave it" nonsense from AC97...?
 
anaqer said:
96kHz I can live happily without, but it sure would be nice to have bit accurate playback. If a chip supports HD Audio, why this "everything resampled to 48kHz, take it or leave it" nonsense from AC97...?
Click to expand...

{Sniping}Waste said:
Have you gone to realteks web site and downloaded the updated drivers? I have the ACL889 and can pick 44.1/48/96/and 192 in the Digital settings.
http://www.realtek.com.tw/downloads...=24&Level=4&Conn=3&DownTypeID=3&GetDown=false
Click to expand...
Thanks to both of you.

@ SW: I have what I believe are the latest drivers (i.e. 2.04.) Does your 889 codec have dts or ddl?

@ anager: Agreed 100%. That's exactly why I think it's unacceptable to not have 96 KHz available because less than that ain't HD audio.

The other reason it's unacceptable is because in the future games will use 24/96 lossless audio.

Plus, like you said 44.1 KHz is more desirable than 48 KHz since nothing I listen to uses 48 KHz so I'm not getting bit accurate playback with my wma lossless files, nor my wave files that i had used exclusively until I tried WMA lossless and found out there was no difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
PlayStation 3: Audio & Video Discussion
Replies
14
Views
5K
FutureCTO
F
Back
Top