| >TFA's author is not active in the field of advancing man's ability to recreate live music more convincingly, AFAIK; he writes codecs As your other questions have been addressed by others, I simply would like to point out that this seems to be quite an arrogant stance to have. The development of codecs has a lot to do with understanding of how the humans perceive sound, and how to effectively encode and reproduce sounds - which is useful even if you personally never listen to anything but analog recordings on analog systems. However, we do live in a digital world, and one where codecs are a necessity. Codecs made recording, sharing, and distributing digital media at all possible - and now, they are making it possible to create better recordings by any metric you choose. Consider this: bandwidth and space-saving that codecs give you allows you to record more data with the same equipment at the highest settings. That's why I don't have to think if I'll run out of memory I want to record 4-channel surround sound on my Zoom H2N (something that definitely goes towards a more faithful reproduction of being there than, say, bumping the frequency to 192kHz, which, incidentally, is the point of the article). Unless you are there to record every live show, we'll have to rely on other people doing that - and guess what, they'll use codecs! How do I know that - that's because I do, they do, and the absolute majority of live show recordings that I've seen were not available in lossless formats. For that matter, good codecs contribute directly to the quality of the sound you'll hear. Therefore, advancing the codecs does advance man's ability to recreate live music more convincingly. So please, pause before dismissing other people's work. >But he makes no mention of the interaural time difference in human auditory perception He also doesn't mention how long it would take from Earth to Mars on a rocket, or the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. If you want to make a claim that this is somehow relevant to the question, you need to argue why, with sources - or simply ask the author, who might just answer. >There is more to learn here, folks, and down-voting a question is an embarrassing failure of these forums. Why aren't posts in support of music piracy down-voted (read above)? Not all questions are created equal. Your last question is an example of one that rightly deserves to be downvoted, as it contributes nothing to the discussion (of whether 192Khz really does anything for us), appeals to emotion, and derails the conversation off the topic. Please don't do that. |
Only where bandwidth and storage are constrained. If we're trying to push the state of the art, it's not going to be with a Zoom H2N.
The best music reproduction systems use lossless compression. Psychoacoustic compression does NOT get us closer to the original performance. I'm stating this as someone who gets 5 out of 5 correct, every time, on the NPR test:
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/h...
(I'm ignoring the Suzanne Vega vocal-only track due to both its absence of musical complexity and use as test content during the development of the MP3 algorithm.)
While I appreciate xiphmont's codec work, I am dismissive of his open attempt to steer research and commerce in this area.
Why is his article posted as "neil-young.html"? Is that really fair?
> If you want to make a claim that this is somehow relevant to the question, you need to argue why, with sources - or simply ask the author, who might just answer.
Please see chaboud's excellent post above, referencing the work of Georg von Bekesy.
> Your last question is an example of one that rightly deserves to be downvoted
You're referring to my array-of-20kHz-tone-generators experiment? Sorry I don't know the answer, but I haven't done the experiment myself; I was hoping someone here had! Where's the appeal to emotion, though? If the experiment shows a higher sample rate is necessary (that's the whole point of the experiment) it's germane.