24/96 FLACs are a fraud

[Anoid]

SACD is not a PCM format so it cannot be converted. This was intentional to keep music away from MP3 players and iPods etc.

So my media rack has no SACD and they are an unwelcome format. They are far too proprietary.

CD has been very successful and it will remain as the format for music for decades to come. The RIAA has said the CD will continue.

[bubanee]

SACD is not a PCM format so it cannot be converted. This was intentional to keep music away from MP3 players and iPods etc.

So my media rack has no SACD and they are an unwelcome format. They are far too proprietary.

CD has been very successful and it will remain as the format for music for decades to come. The RIAA has said the CD will continue.

Redbook got it right hey  16/44.1 is more than enough, when i create 'PCM' format basically WAV really it's in 'Data' format which most DVD players read. SACD 24bit is really a 'Storage' format and some fancy sales pitch nothing more

[Anoid]

My high frequency hearing can notice distortion in the higher frequencies of sibilance in vocals, of cymbals and female vocalists

If CD was 64K samples I would have been much happier, far less distortion

[Moe]

My high frequency hearing can notice distortion in the higher frequencies of sibilance in vocals, of cymbals and female vocalists

If CD was 64K samples I would have been much happier, far less distortion

That has nothing to do with sample rate, and everything to do with poor compression and anti-aliasing filters.

Nothing you perceived would be rectified by capturing frequencies outside of the 44.1k range.

[ill88eagle]

The funny thing about this discussion is people still want higher and higher resolution for video. We have reached the wall of what we can perceive in terms of audio but when it comes to visuals it just HAS TO BE BIGGER AND LARGER AND FILL THE ENTIRE WALL. Guess what: your standard analog big silver screen cinema was never any better than 320p / 24fps. That shit sucks on a 60 inch flatscreen but it displays beautifully on a 22 inch B&O TV (why on earth would you want anything bigger than 22 inches?). Personally I find those UHD TVs at 60fps to feel unreal. I dunno if you ever got that feel? Like someone is randomly fast forwarding/pausing the tape?

But anyway. In terms of aliasing there will be issues no matter how high the sample rate. Only sine waves to reproduce somewhat smoothly will be the ones at frequencies by which the samplerate is divisible. This is not a question of ear. It is plain math. Then you have a shitload of ISO anti aliasing filters to reduce the damage BUT most of us cant hear the difference.

There are people who want to sell you higher resolutions and framerates, and they want make your eyes and ears feel like it is better. It is a business model.

[bubanee]

My high frequency hearing can notice distortion in the higher frequencies of sibilance in vocals, of cymbals and female vocalists
If CD was 64K samples I would have been much happier, far less distortion

That has nothing to do with sample rate, and everything to do with poor compression and anti-aliasing filters.
Nothing you perceived would be rectified by capturing frequencies outside of the 44.1k range.

Moe is correct, hence why a lot of studios use 24bit but the final product normally is 16bit which is more than enough and the fact 44.1 range (half that at human hearing which basically is 22khz which!! is 3khz higher than the 'normal' range of human hearing which falls at 19khz.. !! Music has been led up the gold path for years...
Also add since this is a 24/96, read up on Vinyl and see exactly how high and wide it actually goes and some of these styluses (if that is a word lol) are lucky to go over 27khz!! (54)... a lot of atmosphere hog wash...

---

The funny thing about this discussion is people still want higher and higher resolution for video. We have reached the wall of what we can perceive in terms of audio but when it comes to visuals it just HAS TO BE BIGGER AND LARGER AND FILL THE ENTIRE WALL. Guess what: your standard analog big silver screen cinema was never any better than 320p / 24fps. That shit sucks on a 60 inch flatscreen but it displays beautifully on a 22 inch B&O TV (why on earth would you want anything bigger than 22 inches?). Personally I find those UHD TVs at 60fps to feel unreal. I dunno if you ever got that feel? Like someone is randomly fast forwarding/pausing the tape?

But anyway. In terms of aliasing there will be issues no matter how high the sample rate. Only sine waves to reproduce somewhat smoothly will be the ones at frequencies by which the samplerate is divisible. This is not a question of ear. It is plain math. Then you have a shitload of ISO anti aliasing filters to reduce the damage BUT most of us cant hear the difference.
There are people who want to sell you higher resolutions and framerates, and they want make your eyes and ears feel like it is better. It is a business model.

How true, i own a 4k 55'' and i use a BluRay player because that is all i need... I used to have 4k player but seriously the quality on some movies was crap, total regenerated computer graphics for some movies and others that usual grainy lets hide all the crud of a old film lol... I'm half blind out of focus and 55'' is all i need i have some friends who have that penis eXtension of TV's.. seriously if you have to turn your head like a tennis match lol.. it ain't worth it lol..

[dueda]

The funny thing about this discussion is people still want higher and higher resolution for video.
We have reached the wall of what we can perceive in terms of audio but when it comes to visuals it just HAS TO BE BIGGER AND LARGER AND FILL THE ENTIRE WALL.
Guess what: your standard analog big silver screen cinema was never any better than 320p / 24fps. That shit sucks on a 60 inch flatscreen but it displays beautifully on a 22 inch B&O TV (why on earth would you want anything bigger than 22 inches?).
Personally I find those UHD TVs at 60fps to feel unreal. I dunno if you ever got that feel? Like someone is randomly fast forwarding/pausing the tape?

But anyway. In terms of aliasing there will be issues no matter how high the sample rate. Only sine waves to reproduce somewhat smoothly will be the ones at frequencies by which the samplerate is divisible. This is not a question of ear. It is plain math. Then you have a shitload of ISO anti aliasing filters to reduce the damage BUT most of us cant hear the difference.

There are people who want to sell you higher resolutions and framerates, and they want make your eyes and ears feel like it is better. It is a business model.

I disagree... Business or not, I am totally sure a 80", wide ratio screen, high definition, high resolution, is better than a 40" which is better than a 20", reason being
- distance from sofa, field of view and eye comfort;
- memory connection to real life size (immersion),
- spotting details (even if you're not actively seeking, your brain will detect).
The last one requires also image definition (usually called "resolution", which I understand you already know is not the proper term).

CRTs worked at 50/60Hz (frames per second) but phosphor has long bright persistence; new LCD/LED screens benefit from higher refresh rates (resolution), especially in fast moving scenes.
Also, with traditional AC lights in the room, one will notice a lot of flicker and reflexes if low frequency is used, so the best TVs now have 120, 144, even 240 Hz/FPS.

Old screens were 4:3 (squared) while the new video programs are double width 16:9 and cinema is much wider at 36:9, so a 20" screen would be, allow me say, like stale salt-and-butter-free popcorn.
To watch a wide format movie in a 20" diagonal TV is disappointing, to say the least, and problematic if pan/scan/crop is used to fill the screen, it's an incomplete experience.

Big screen 320? In 35mm theater quality film, according to Kodak, there can be 6000 molecules of photo-sensible material per inch in just one dimension (lines). So analogue cinema can go much higher than 4K. I already posted about that, just a reminder as I can't go find that to quote now.

So I conclude that there can be fun and even a great time with a small screen, but B&O? It's a $$$ tens of thousands Euro videophile AV monitor 95%+ people can't come close, most don't even know those exist.

I used to have 4k player but seriously the quality on some movies was crap, total regenerated computer graphics for some movies...
i have some friends who have that penis eXtension of TV's...
seriously if you have to turn your head like a tennis match lol...

I have to say, BD was a gimmick, it improved viewing quality a lot at the expense of fidelity.
Better definition (pixel count) but it lacked room to store the video as the management monkeys wanted, so color was the main victim. It looks like CG, image is "flat"... 

But it's not 4K's fault, it's BD to blame. Digital movie theatres use a different, much better format.

Agree with the penis competition and the tennis matches, but for some people the head movement is a fair trade-off, part of "life like" immersion. People like choices, looking to this or that character, etc.

[heroskeep]

The higher than audible range is usually for better roll offs / etc., algorithms have more data to work on and with good speakers more space to work on.

There are good explanation about it on avsforum and why this much higher range contributes to better sound quality in the lower range.

If you don't want to get into that rabbit hole, tl;dr; - it matters but you have to have good, capable hardware as well and not some supermarket speakers, some room treatment, properly calibrated and organized sound system etc.
There is a lot of snake oil in the audio/video world, but this ain't one of them.

---

Personally I find those UHD TVs at 60fps to feel unreal. I dunno if you ever got that feel? Like someone is randomly fast forwarding/pausing the tape?
...
There are people who want to sell you higher resolutions and framerates, and they want make your eyes and ears feel like it is better. It is a business model.

You're probably talking about frame interpolation, different producers have different algorithms but the so called "soap opera" effect is usually inevitable.

The best refresh rate for the usual ~24 FPS in movies is 120 Hz as it's dividable to full number without fractions and thus creating very smooth image without the need for FI.

When I watch sports I switch to 60 Hz and high rate of FI (unless it's 60 FPS then I leave it in 120 Hz) and when movies I switch to 120 Hz and no FI.

(why on earth would you want anything bigger than 22 inches?).

I have a home cinema, I like watching movies and sports on a big screen.

---

seriously if you have to turn your head like a tennis match lol.. it ain't worth it lol..

Screen size should be matched to the room size, specifically the viewing distance - there's no point having big screen in a small room the same way as small screen in a big room.
For big screen Ideally it should be a rectangle room so you can sit at a proper distance without having to move your head.
If you have to move your head when watching and can't sit further away, I would make the screen smaller as it's not comfortable.

[RodneyYouPlonker]

You're better if you have a smaller screen because a large screen is very stretched out.  If you have high quality but smaller the picture looks better.  The problem with these latest big screens like 80 inch is that the picture is far too stretched and you really need something like at least 4K quality or even 8K quality like from YouTube to make it look normal like smaller screens.  Sadly having a giant screen is not always the best way to go.  You'll find that having a smaller screen the picture looks more detailed and sharper and nicer overall looking at a movie say you'll get more enjoyment that way and you can make a 1080p movie look good and save yourself some money in the process not having to buy expensive and overpriced 4K discs if you like having a player and not that horrible Netflix rubbish that clogs up internet connections.

You can't beat a good small size screen as you'll get more enjoyment the 80 inch screens are all overpriced anyway and far too stretched out and not really ideal if you want the best from your movies...

Now... moving back to the main topic, I just want to say that I'm glad I've never bothered to build up some kind of FLAC collection because as I said many months ago you're wasting your time now with FLAC if you want music on the go and want it in your pocket when you're out and about the price of players now is absurd and you're better to save a lot of money and just simply get a good Apple product.  There's no way now that I would even consider anything other than an Apple product as it's the thing now and certainly avoid anything else that says you can listen to FLAC on it due to being completely overpriced in the most ridiculous way possible.  MP3 for me is the way forward and I happen to think that storing MP3 now is more valuable than any kind of FLAC setup simply because you save mountains of space so I'm just glad I never hardly bothered with FLAC because it was simply something for a time period more like a gimmick format but nothing much else.  Fill all your hard drives full to the brim but you're wasting your time if you want your music out and about on the go, think again, if you want to carry your laptop everywhere you go then it might suit you but no thanks.  You can't beat music on the go walking around town in the city, on the bus train plane it's the best way to enjoy music not sat there with your lappy on 24/7 in your mother's back bedroom that's not the way to enjoy music so I say after all these years definitely no to FLAC it's crap shouldn't have even bothered at all 

[heroskeep]

You're better if you have a smaller screen because a large screen is very stretched out.  If you have high quality but smaller the picture looks better.  The problem with these latest big screens like 80 inch is that the picture is far too stretched and you really need something like at least 4K quality or even 8K quality like from YouTube to make it look normal like smaller screens. 

I don't feel like my screen is stretched or lack details in any way but I only watch 4K bluray content when it comes to movies, I don't know exactly how big my screen is but it's wide about 5 meters and about 2+ meters high and the image is very detailed using 4K laser projector.
Even YT content looks good and if it's not in 4K then the latest chrome + rtx can upscale on fly and add HDR - it's far from bluray quality and true HDR that comes with it of course

The feeling of immersion you get from big screen is worth it and I like the fact that I can just push a button on my remote and it hides in the ceiling so my living room remains living room and do not becomes a theater room

1080p movie look good and save yourself some money in the process not having to buy expensive and overpriced 4K discs if you like having a player and not that horrible Netflix rubbish that clogs up internet connections.

I download all my 4K blurays from torrents, they weight about 70-80 GB but I have fast umetered connection and a NAS with a lot of space so it costs me basically nothing.
As for 1080p... I don't find it looking good even on a medium size TV screen, it's a mediocre resolution.

---

Sorry for the off-topic, back to the subject. (we can continue screen discussion in new thread)