2. pc-audio
  3. 1332713870

Should Sound Quality of Computer Audio be improved

Unable to respond to, "Mach2Music and Amarra: Huge Disappointment"- Thread. Other Members take free pop-shots!
Apparently some have more Freedom Of Speech than others! I
don't know how many times I have said it, I want Computer
Audio to succeed! It will only succeed if Computers are designed from the ground up to reproduce Music (Same minimum standard applied for Equipment of ALL Audio Formats)! This is common sense Audio Engineering Design. Bandaid Modifications cannot be substituted for absence in design to produce Music! Design it right to EARN the right to become a New Audio Format- same as all other Audio Formats! No Freebee's, No Cutting Corners! Lack of design is what's causing such varied results in S.Q. between
listeners of Computer Audio. I see about 50% negative
responses here on these Threads. It will continue to happen unless you fix it! Blaming me won't help! I am an
Engineer, and I can read results! 50/50 success/ failure
rate- you have an inherit Engineering Design Flaw for the
reproduction of Music via Computers! Shock! Suprise- since
they were never designed for Music! So when is someone finally going to properly design the Equipment/Computer
(From the ground up) for Computer Audio? Do we continue
to treat any real criticism as "HERESY" in the lack of
design in Computer Audio for Music? You tell me what I am
allowed to talk about, and we will both know!
pettyofficer
chadeffect
586 posts
 
P.O,

Come to a recording studio and let me give you a lesson in sample rates. It's clear you have no experience.

Once you start getting into 24/192 the rest in SQ is a bonus. It's not just about the sample rate once you get this high. Your understanding or possibly experience seems to be the fossil here.

What about questions like which mic & preamp? Which mixing desk? Which take? This all adds up to a decent recording. Don't you understand? You are worrying about such fine detail at this point. I won't watch star wars because he didn't use that other lense on that camera!

We get into a whole load of technical issues which is beyond you and I once we ask the question of even higher sample rates on top of these. Brick wall filters or not. Phase, ringing and implementation etc.

I can say this because the most experienced in the business cannot agree on which is best. But I can promise you what we have is better than what went before. The question is how much better?
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,861 posts
 
Chad,

May I send my Jack Russell Terrier for some lessons?

You will probably have more success educating him. He is very smart AND a good listener. :-)
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Hi Mapman,

I love jack Russell's. Great little dogs with huge personality and attitude.

His ears I bet would be pretty good for the upper frequencies. Do you think he worries about multichannel downloads and the demise of other playback formats?

I bet he won't let go of that stick either ;-)
pettyofficer OP
462 posts
 
Simple question Folks. If you don't need 24/192 Multi-
Channel on MLP Disk, why in the world would you pay the
same for a 2 Channel 24/192 Download? Why Digitally
Record at 24/192 if the Sampling Rate makes no difference?
Digitally Record at 16/44.1 for Downloaded Music Files.
Keep everything at 16/44.1 since it makes no difference.
Who are you kidding, you guys ARE buying the High Rez.
Download Stuff expecting what- 16/44.1 performance? I
don't think so! If this is the case, I suggest putting
your dog in charge. He would probably make more sense.
It is really simple. Garbage in- Garbage out also applies
to Sampling Rate, as it applies to everything else in
the Audio Chain. You guys are arguing otherwise- we are
back to Reversing Entropy/ Flat Earth debate ad Nauseum.
I am ending this lunacy now! It is starting to make me
Nauscious. Argue with yourself in a mirror- I am out of here! Arguing with someone who can't add, I'm better off arguing with a drunk! Recreating your own Math because
2 + 2 = 4 is too inconvenient for you? Well, it has just got to go! Right? So do I. If you can't figure out why it
doesn't add up- don't come to me. After all, you know
better!
chadeffect
586 posts
 
PO,

I will make this clear. Maybe this is complex.

Once you get to 24/192k sample rates, any higher sampling rates become less important than othe issues for recording studios. At that point (way above 44.1k. i.e 192k) technical requirements get tricky. PO is this clear to you?

This is why some speak of PCM while others talk of DSD and DXD. The technical requirements of the hardware in studios starts to become difficult. For instance there are very few multitrack DAWs that can handle DXD. Most studio kit is 24/192 compatible and under only. Are we clear on that too PO?

Obviously a 16/44.1 recording will NOT sound as NATURAL as much HIGHER sample rates. At least double and upwards of 44.1 and depending on the RECORDING quality of course there will be a nice gain.

Now i will muddy the water. Your clever joke about staying at 44.1 is interesting. (if you are interested) Many top guys used to stay at a single sample rate because at the time the dithering algorithms were not good. Mastering guys felt dithering caused more problems than staying 44.1 all the way through the process.(44.1 due to CDs) But that was in the 1990s.
More to discover