| > Therefore, advancing the codecs does advance man's ability to recreate live music more convincingly. 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. |
I.e. everywhere in this universe. There is not such thing as unlimited bandwidth/storage. Gains that codecs give allow us to record information that otherwise would be lost.
>If we're trying to push the state of the art, it's not going to be with a Zoom H2N.
I wish I could see the future so clearly!
I only have guesses, and my guess tells me that audio captured from 10 Zoom H2N's at 48kHz will store more information than audio from a single microphone at 480kHz. Current "state of the art" seems to use fewer channels. An advance in the state of the art in the direction of utilizing more sources seems more than feasible to me.
>Psychoacoustic compression does NOT get us closer to the original performance
I think you have missed my point. An uncompressed source is obviously not going to be better than the lossy-compressed data.
However, we do not live in a world of infinite resources. Given the constraints, compression offers new possibilities.
At the same space/bandwidth, you can have, e.g.:
- uncompressed audio from a single source
- compressed audio from 5x many sources
- compressed audio from 2x sources, plus some other data which affects the perception of the sound (???)
This plays right into your question "Why are we only considering bitrate/frequency?" - we don't. Compression offers more flexibility in making other directions viable.
This is why I believe that codec research is important for advances of the state of the art.
>I am dismissive of his open attempt to steer research and commerce in this area.
In what area exactly? What research? He is not "steering research", he is educating the less knowledgeable general public. So far, your dismissive attitude can also be applied verbatim to anyone who explains why super-thick-golden-cables from MonstrousCable(tm) are a waste of money.
>> 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?
No, I was referring to this:
>Why aren't posts in support of music piracy down-voted (read above)?